Skip to main content

About this Show

[untitled]

NETWORK

DURATION
00:30:00

RATING

SCANNED IN
San Francisco, CA, USA

SOURCE
Comcast Cable

TUNER
Channel 89 (615 MHz)

VIDEO CODEC
mpeg2video

AUDIO CODEC
ac3

PIXEL WIDTH
528

PIXEL HEIGHT
480

TOPIC FREQUENCY

Puc 3, Us 3, Mr. Brooks 2, Mike 1, Etc. 1, Trunk 1,
Borrow a DVD
of this show
  SFGTV    [untitled]  

    July 29, 2011
    11:30 - 12:00pm PDT  

11:30am
not our usual protocol which follows the administrative code and the competitive bidding process to have a scope of work at it as an amendment written by the consultant. >> why don't we put a motion on the table and then we will take public comment? is there a motion to approve item number 12? >> so moved. >> is there a second? >> second. >> why don't we take public comment before we take a vote? >> good afternoon. we represent the green party and the local grassroots organization. i would like to clarify what the advocates are asking for. what we're asking for is not a
11:31am
change of any of the current terms of the contract. that is not what this is about. the scope of work document that you have looked at which is about 19 pages, that is a product of ourselves, the advocates for local power, and the staff of the puc working together to come up with the tasks under the current contract that would be played out under this contract extension. this does not change any terms at all, all it does it specify that the puc staff is planning for this contract to do under the current contract. this is just a description of the work tasks. maybe there are some things with the legal thing, if that is a
11:32am
problem, we would just call this a set of tasks words. at any rate, to get to the substance of what was brought up in the previous item, so what this two page is from advocates asking you to attach that scope of work to your resolution, not as an amendment but just as indicating the expected work that local power will do under its current contract and we have advocates. the stuff of talking about, we have come up over many months, worked diligently with the staff to come up with all of these work tasks. we have gone to a bit of an impasse in that we want them in the scope of work that you have all seen. the puc said they would prefer a different approach and not only
11:33am
between ourselves as the groups that showed up today but in consultation with a lot of stakeholders, environmental justice groups, labor groups, community justice, jobs justice, have received what the pcr result proposed saying that those are not adequate to get all of those things that i was talking about in the last item and how this would affect the overall program. it is crucial you not only approve this contract but had this set of amendment to your resolution and attach the work we want done so it is clear that you are saying to staff that those are the tasks we want to see so that when we too powerful program, this actually has good economics, etc. >> of course, if we had agreed,
11:34am
we would not have this conversation and the staff would oppose this because the point is that we don't believe that this is the appropriate work. this is not something we would want to pay for. >> mr. brooks is giving a scope of work and he just to find it as the language which is not in scope of work but rather an indication of what would be done anyway. >> i don't want to get hung up on the terminology. we believe that we can amend the contract. we can work with whoever to figure out what those tasks are. mr. brooks would like you to accept the list that has been prepared that we have objected to. we do not believe these of the tasks that are appropriate.
11:35am
we would like it to be included so that you can force the staff to agree with them rather than the regular negotiation process. >> we should not because -- i would be happy to go over this. this continue refers back to the 2007 ordinances which talk about a 360 megawatt program. we offered you a 30 megawatt program and one was to reduce debt and some because of the risk involved. trying to implement a program that we are not trying to implement is a strange thing to try to get someone to do. we're looking at a rollout and having someone to work for the 60 megawatt program which would make no sense to me. that is the general concept. >> can i ask for clarification?
11:36am
the 30 megawatt was for the shell portion. that peace is on a local builder out portion, right? >> let's talk about the financing. what we want to do is to financial assistance. the way that you build something is that you have investors or customers. what they would like us to do is to build something with need their. the only investors would be the puc. if we don't have any program, we have no customers. thinking that there is a program that you could build out local generations without a source of funding does not really work. i think that some of the stakeholders have understood which took us several years to explain that they're not free.
11:37am
if you issue bonds, someone must pay them back. if you're going to issue bonds, you have to of customers to pay them back or have some revenue stream to pay them back. that is not a clear concept that is in this scope. this scope says that you should be building. that is not something that works for me. there is a lot problems to try to go out and see how you might do a pro forma so that you could build something, be happy to work on that. if you would do solar, how you would afford to pay for it, all the regulations that you deal with, that would be a great scope of work. you have to go out and change the permits or two different things to be able to do these
11:38am
build ounce, happy to work on that. if you want to pick out the sites and figure out where you will build something and you have no financing plan to build it and to avoid the discussion, that is not make any sense which is why now we have had any. >> they have not said there was an interest in doing that. >> i would like to talk about the general manager to work more closely with the stakeholders and see if we can come to some sort of agreement on a scope of work that feels like value added to this program because this
11:39am
would build the pieces. there's a lot of value to be added from this group and we need to figure out the best way to come to terms with what would work. >> that is why i think the general manager's position is reasonable. >> i have been at the table for a lot of meetings with the puc and they did put forward their version of the plan which is to do it at an early meeting. it was not going to produce the sort of comprehensive information we need to veto a local builder out plan. if you can't do that and look at this work and see which one you think would actually get you a comprehensive information you would need, the kind of scope of work they have been offering is
11:40am
the issue that has been at the project here and there without a full understanding of the analysis of what is needed and different financing offices -- options. i must say that i did not like the misrepresentation that advocates use of the bonds. i don't know if that was directed at me or someone else but i wondered who was it. are really think that is in his characterization of what we're doing and what our understanding of these issues is. i wanted to say the commission that the language in the e-mail, the town of it or whatever, i did not draft it and i would not have chosen that tone or whenever. what we were trying to do is express that we feel that we need to get this information to deal with the questions and concerns that were raised about
11:41am
the other aspects of the program and to not lead us forward into the real strategy. if we had had that information earlier, i feel like the questions are coming now that came up for us in february. we are just getting stalled without having staff really get this information and maybe they don't think they need it. looking at the sticker shock of what that is costing, i look at the sticker shock of those rates as making the program very hard to be accessible. what we were trying to do is try to inform that if we're not able to get the puc to get this information and to form the
11:42am
program, then we will be looking for a place where we can get the information for you we would rather that the commission to reps -- rather the commission directed staff to do this. we would like to get this information so that we can move forward. >> thank you. >> i would like to follow-up on that and say that as a further correction perhaps at our meeting, we could have a report back on what has happened with this conversation and if this is not work, it will be really specific to local builder out. it sounds like there is information they need in order
11:43am
to put together a comprehensive plan and whether it should be information -- it seems to me that mike is the director of the program and is the navigator of the ship. if we can get some of that information and depends on what the resolution will be in the next meeting, as part of the terms of discussion, that would be quite helpful. >> in terms of giving staffed direction, we are at a point that is considerably down the road. i think that has been significant progress. i am interested in getting the
11:44am
information we need to deliver our program. we're the people who will be responsible for it working or not. whatever scope of work is given to whatever contractor is part of our effort to get the interest in need to deliver our program and not part of an effort to create some the else's program. i think that is part of the direction. >> thank you. question afternoon. to grab an analogy used earlier to look at the situation with you blind men are in a room with the elephant and they are unable to see it for what it is, one man will grab the trunk, say it is a snake. perhaps, another will grab a
11:45am
leg. the jobs are absolutely critical. sometimes, you get caught in to analogies and they can be twisted and for those that have
11:46am
offended, i apologize. >> thank you. >> thank you. are there felt further public comments on item 12? >> i would like to bring up -- for a moment >> can you talk about a local builder out? >> this is to do generation and the efficiency contact. earlier, there is a discussion of jobs.
11:47am
this is an essential portion to the program. >> we had an issue related to studding something and this seems to me like you can put that on the blocks but sometimes that is not always that easy. with respect to the job opportunities in the southeast sector, what does that look like? >> this can range. this can range from electrician jobs and solar panels and from labor, this entails a variety of
11:48am
different aspects that people have and that people will be able to build a towards. >> thank you. >> i want to reiterate my support for any bill that because i feel that that is one of the great promises. this is because of the jobs component and transport and energy long distances, we're not contract in. that will get us through this first phase. i encourage the staff to work with stakeholders and work with the staff to come up with a viable financial plan to make it happen. >> and generate as many jobs as possible. any other questions or comments on item number 12?
11:49am
is there a motion to adopt? >> there was a motion. >> thank you, the item carries. >> the next item is a closed session. is it any item on the closed session? >> 15, a threat to public services. 16, conference with real property negotiator. 70, conference with legal counsel.
11:50am
>> is there a motion to move to closed session? >> so moved. >> closed >> there was action taken on item 16. and no other items. is there a motion to not disclose any further items? second? all in favor? opposed? any new business? hearing none, the meeting is adjourned.
11:51am
11:52am
11:53am
11:54am
11:55am
11:56am
11:57am
11:58am
11:59am